You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Apprentice comments on question: the 40 hour work week vs Silicon Valley? - Less Wrong Discussion

13 Post author: Florian_Dietz 24 October 2014 12:09PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (107)

Comments (107)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Apprentice 25 October 2014 03:30:28PM *  5 points [-]

Bock said ... that learning ability was much more important indicator of whether someone would be a good fit for Google than I.Q.

I have limited trust in a source which says things like that.

Edited to add: More on Bock's learning ability:

For every job, though, the No. 1 thing we look for is general cognitive ability, and it’s not I.Q. It’s learning ability. It’s the ability to process on the fly. It’s the ability to pull together disparate bits of information.

Yeah, nope.

Comment author: Princess_Stargirl 25 October 2014 06:21:52PM 5 points [-]

I was about to post that quote too. Surely IQ has nothing to do with "ability to process on the fly" or "pull together disparate bits of information."

Comment author: Apprentice 25 October 2014 06:57:47PM 10 points [-]

It's of course possible that this Bock guy knows what he's doing on the hiring front. But in these interviews he has no incentive to give Google's competitors coherent helpful information on how to hire people - and every incentive to send out obfuscated messages which might flatter the preconceptions of NYT readers.

Comment author: gwern 25 October 2014 07:15:46PM 10 points [-]

I've pointed out in the past that in the Google context, range restriction is a problem (when everyone applying to Google is ultra-smart, smartness ceases to be a useful predictor), so Bock could be saying something true & interesting in picking out some other traits which vaguely sound like IQ but aren't (maybe 'processing speed'?), but then he or the writer are being very misleading (intentionally or unintentionally). I don't know which of these possibilities might be true.

Comment author: Baughn 26 October 2014 04:09:16PM *  8 points [-]

Everyone who applies to Google is not ultra-smart. Far from it.

As a first-line interviewer, most people get rejected for being blatantly, horrifically incapable.

The perception that they are, unfortunately, causes many people who'd have a chance at acceptance to not even try. Anyone reading this, if you've thought about applying to Google and decided you don't have a chance, please think again! The opportunity costs are really low, and potentially negative; worst case you'll get a bit of interviewing experience.

Comment author: Petter 26 October 2014 04:43:02PM 5 points [-]

No, everyone who applies to Google is not ulta-smart but most who are hired are probably pretty smart.

Given that everyone who are hired are smart, gwerns point is valid.

Comment author: Princess_Stargirl 25 October 2014 07:33:06PM 2 points [-]

Sorry if I was unclear. I am not claiming I understand why that article was written. But the quote is very funny.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit